User talk:Leaky caldron/Archives/2013/December

RFPP note
Hi Leaky caldron, I had to move your RFPP request (which I've granted) from the "Current requests for reduction in protection level" to the "Current requests for increase in protection level" section. I'm wondering if the misplaced request was the result of a Twinkle bug, as another editor did the same thing, again with Twinkle. Just letting you know in case it looked as though I was editing your request! Best. Acalamari 18:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It must stem from the renaming of the protect/unprotect headers on RFPP itself; two weeks ago, those two headers still had their old names. I must have missed when the change took place and only recently noticed it. :/ Acalamari 18:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for finding that. I found this edit and this discussion, with the latter revealing that there have been other bugs with Twinkle and RFPP. This particular problem doesn't appear to have been raised there, though, so I think I'll do that. Acalamari 18:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Striking out that last part; it was mentioned, I just didn't read far enough down. Apparently Twinkle gets confused with the move-protection that the article has in place. Acalamari 19:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 December 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 06:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Oligarchy
Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-12-04/Recent_research. Of possible interest. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

IP 5.66.27.168
Just did it again, claiming that she finished 12th in the public vote because there were 12 campmates --MSalmon (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Help, I can't do this on my own! --MSalmon (talk) 17:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And it has started again by different user, not going through it again! --MSalmon (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 December 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 04:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey!
Not being a Democrat is a 'quirky notion' now? Ruude!--v/r - TP 19:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Kafziel arbitration case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 29, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense
I don't want to drag this out on the Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013 thread, so I'll follow up here. You are almost certainly aware that some have expressed concern that the Wikipedia editing environment is sometimes hostile, and that may be a factor in the low percentage of women editors. While I am very familiar with your user name, I don't know the first thing about your opinion on this issue.

I happen to oppose the position espoused by EllenCT. As stated, it is a quota, where the quota is set equal to the proportion of the target in the population. I personally think such quotas are, on balance, not the best way of achieving laudable goals. As I noted, I am not a knee jerk opponent of all quotas, I have seen working examples of quotas, which were set well below the representation proportion, and I felt they worked fine in those situations. I do not know whether Ellen was espousing that there be some lower limit, and the current proportion is the opening bid in a negotiation, or whether that number is non-negotiable, but I now realize that my reaction to your comment is not dependent on which of those is the case.

What I object to is the dismissive nature of the claim that the proposal is nonsense or nonsensical. There is a rich history of the use of quotas in many aspects of life. I think there are people of good faith on both sides of the arguments. I think it is possible to respect proponents of proportional quotas, even though I think they create more problems than they solve. However, I think disagreement should be stated with a specific identification of reason for opposition, rather than a dismissive "nonsense".

I do think some people make proposals that are so absurd they do not deserve a reasoned response, and mockery is justified, but this isn't close to being such a situation.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Instead of "reading into" what you think my criticism is, why not just simply read the OP's actual proposition. It states "I would like to see the number of women arbitrators meet or exceed the number of female editors". It is palpable nonsense since the number of female editors equals many tens of thousands and the size of Arbcom is 15. It the OP wishes to correctly define what they mean, quota, percentage, fixed allocation, whatever; then a sensible debate can be had. Leaving it as it stands is sloppy and deserves to be ignored and not speculated on further until it's corrected. I am amazed and never disappointed at the number of editors like you willing to jump to assumptions about fellow editors opinions when a glaring erroneous statement of fact is staring you in the face and you either fail to spot it or worse, actually assume you know what the fuck it is intended to mean. If you care to share your insight into the OPs actual suggesting please do so, or better still, ask them to clarify what they mean, rather than (a) assuming you know and (b) dragging me over here with a thinly veiled accusation of making personal attack. Leaky  Caldron  14:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that just makes it worse. I concede I did not read it closely enough. Like many people, I not only assumed she meant proportion, I didn't even notice the error until you pointed it out.


 * Do you honestly think she meant it as literally typed?


 * Maybe because I've often managed to type something that turned out to be the opposite of what I meant, by missing a "not" or something similar, I appreciate it when some asks, "Are you sure you mean X rather than "Not X"? Kudos to you if you've never managed to make a similar error.


 * If she literally meant that, then I agree it is nonsense. I'll give 1000-1 odds she didn't mean it. Which means you chose to be rude, instead of helpful. Do you think that helps the project?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering if you read anything at all, other than the word "nonsense" and my username associated with it, from which you managed to come up with an accusation that my comment was a personal attack against the OP's views on the subject. If you had read ALL of my comments you would have seen "However, assuming Ellen means a proportional representation, where does it end?", for example, or my remarks about other minorities or later, my tacit support for woman AC members because I happen to think they might be more suitable than Anglo American, male Admins. who are typically (IMO) full of their own self-importance and test the patience of editors with their alpha-male pompous posturing. It took me 4 attempts to get my response above correct, I made 3 minor mistakes. How did I know? I read and re-checked it. We only have words to work with here, no facial expressions, no inflections of voice. If an editor is seeking to make an important point on an important topic in a high traffic area it is absolutely incumbent on them to pay attention to what they write and any subsequent discussion. I totally dismiss your accusation as quickly as I dismiss the credibility of any editor who criticises another without having understood the exact point being made. I don't think I help the project, nor do I think that I hinder it. Leaky  Caldron  15:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I seem to be unable to express my point in a useful way, so I'll stop.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * When you arrive as unprepared as you admittedly did and so eager to criticise don't expect that your point is going to be well received. Leaky  Caldron  16:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * When you arrive as unprepared as you admittedly did and so eager to criticise don't expect that your point is going to be well received. Leaky  Caldron  16:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

hello
Helllo can you help me edit and clean gramatical errors that exist in wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammad hazieq (talk • contribs) 19:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)